손해배상(자)
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts and
2. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the parties’ assertion are as stated in the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
3. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this part are as follows: each of the "this Court" in the Part 4, No. 15, No. 6, and No. 21, respectively, shall be dismissed as "the court of first instance"; the "cognizal disorder" in the Part 7, No. 16, shall be dismissed as "cognizal disorder"; and No. 9, No. 14, the same shall apply to the corresponding part among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal under the part No. 9, No. 14, the same shall apply
(B) Personal information of (1) judgment on the claim for passive damage (actual income): as shown below.
A I (2) Income and Operating Period: Calculation of the Urban Daily Wage of an ordinary worker, the number of working days until he reaches the age of 22, and the rate of the loss of labor capacity due to the latter disability: 23% of the loss of labor capacity due to the recognition and functional disorder, permanent disability (applicable to two parts of the Mabrid disability Assessment Table, brain, scale 7-B-2-b, occupational coefficient 3) (4).
(5) The limitation of liability is limited to KRW 66,90,582 (i.e., KRW 89,200,776 x 0.75) equivalent to 75% of the Defendant’s liability by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the mother D, who was in the scene of an accident, did not make efforts to ensure the safety of the Plaintiff; and (b) the background of the accident and the shape of the road near the scene
(6) Article 766(2) of the Civil Act provides that the right to claim damages shall expire when ten years have elapsed since the date when a tort under Article 766(2) was committed to determine the defense of extinction of prescription. In the case of a claim for damages arising from a tort at a time interval between a harmful act and the occurrence of damage, “the date when the tort was committed”, which serves as the starting point of